ILNews

Bingham McHale merging with Louisville firm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based law firm Bingham McHale will merge with Louisville-based law firm Greenebaum Doll & McDonald, a regional firm that explored the possibility of merging with another Indiana firm three years ago.

The two law firms announced Wednesday morning that members had voted in support of the merger between Bingham McHale and the 117-lawyer firm Greenebaum Doll & McDonald, creating what will become Bingham Greenebaum Doll with nearly 250 attorneys once the merger takes effect Jan. 2.

Bingham McHale’s managing partner Toby McClamroch told Indiana Lawyer the merger moved quickly and has been in the works for about 10 weeks. It was specifically the transactional, tax and natural resources practice areas of Greenebaum that were the most appealing to Bingham, he said.

In a written statement, McClamroch said, “Bingham McHale LLP is not only increasing the depth and breadth of our experience in key areas such as tax and finance, but we are also entering into a true merger that honors both firms’ histories and current successes.”

With 130 lawyer and 11 paralegals currently, Bingham is listed as the fourth-largest firm in Indianapolis, and its roots date back to 1919. Formerly known as Bingham Summers Welsh & Spilman, it merged with local competitor McHale Cook & Welch in 2001 to form Bingham McHale.

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald began exploring a merger with Indianapolis firm Ice Miller in December 2008, but no merger occurred.

“We will be expanding our geographic footprint and strengthening our knowledge base in areas such as governmental work and municipal bonding,” Greenebaum Chairman Phillip D. Scott said in a statement.

The combined firm will retain Bingham’s offices in Indianapolis, Jasper and Vincennes and will also add an office in Evansville at the start of the year. Greenebaum’s offices in Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort, Ky., and Cincinnati, Ohio, will also be retained.

Bingham McHale’s clients include Gatorade Trust, the group that invented the Gatorade sports drink; locally based mall giant Simon Property Group Inc.; and French-based Saint-Gobain, a large building-materials company that has operations in Indianapolis. Greenebaum Doll’s clients include Louisville insurer Humana Inc. and franchisees of the KFC restaurant chain.

This has been an active year for local law firm mergers, with several others announced in recent months to take effect at the start of 2012.

Most recently, the Evansville firms of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and Lavallo & Frank in Dec. 11 announced they’d be joining together under the name of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn effective Jan. 1. Together, the combined firm will have 30 attorneys.

In October, 221-attorney firm Baker & Daniels, based in Indianapolis, announced a merger with 500-lawyer Faegre & Benson in Minneapolis, and effective Jan. 1 the combined firm will be known as Faegre Baker Daniels.

That came after the August announcement by Ice Miller that it would combine its 224-attorneys with the 90-attorney firm Schottenstein Zox & Dunn in Columbus, Ohio. That merger takes effect Jan. 1, but will not result in a departure from the Ice Miller name.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT